> some deniers of climate change argue that there is no scientific consensus on the issue while framing themselves as heroes pushing back against established co

> some deniers of climate change argue that there is no scientific consensus on the issue while framing themselves as heroes pushing back against established consensus. Both cannot be true Sure they can, scientific consensus != the consensus of the whole society. In addition he says as if this is a central part of the theory rather than just the argument that some random supporters of said theory say. > Trump, for instance, claimed that ... This is not even a theory about a conspiracy though. Why is this in the article? > Yet past polls of unauthorized Hispanic immigrants suggest that many of them would have voted for a Republican candidate over a Democratic one If they disagree they should engage in open dialogue. I have no reason to trust either of them. > This article is about encouraging skepticism and analysis Then let me be sceptic about how they did not include any conspiracy theories that are supported by the democrat party. > Notice how it discusses false conspiracy theories Conspiracy theories which that the one writing the article decided that they were false. > sometimes conspiracy theories could become truth Sometimes conspiracy theories are true from the start.